NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 6067409" data-attributes="member: 7635">RE: easy and hard mode.In an ideal world, each of the four classes (and perhaps many of the supplemental ones) would be able to run in a less complex yet equally powerful mode as complex versions of the same classes. Thus, players of varying skill, interest, and ability could play together and still contribute meaningfully.I rank that up there with "perfect length boss fights" and "interesting yet balanced magic items" in the not-gonna-happen category.Ignore the difference in classes for a moment. What does a "simple" wizard or cleric look like? What does a "simple" rogue do? How are the complex "hard mode" ones meaningfully different? Take the wizard for an example. The easiest way to build an "easy mode" wizard is to use the 3.5 sorcerer model: small pool of spells, lots of chances to use it. Avoid the complex or esoteric spells (polymorph, summons, illusion) and focus on the iconic subset (direct damage, defense, utility). You'd get a wizard that's fairly simple to play, but realistically is he equal to the complex mage who can change shapes, conjure fiends, and fool enemies into believing a door exists where it shouldn't? In easy mode, the wizard is crippled by his small selection of mostly attack spells and can't possibly hold his own against a wizard decked out in full customized glory and the complete complement of spells. You'd get the 3.5 wizard vs sorcerer problem again; if not worse (since sorcerers could learn any spell in 3.5 and wasn't barred from complex summons, illusions, and such).The Fighter is a similar case: an "easy fighter" hits and does damage; lather rinse repeat. A complex fighter's trips, disarms, and pushes and reaping strikes is a lot more versatile and thus stronger than one whose only means of contribution is damage. I mean, a fighter who can choose to raise his AC and tank automatically has the advantage over one who can't. Again, the fighter who can do nothing but hit suffers against the more versatile complex fighter, who can STILL go "all damage" if he needs to as well. You can do the same for clerics, rogues, and any other class which depends on having elements of customization or tactical choices. Personally, I can't see having "easy" or "hard" modes that can work together. You really can't have "easy" and "hard" fighters expected to fill the same role. Either the game wants to be complex, rich, and option-full (but hard to get into) or it wants to be light, simple, and quick (but not very detailed/fiddily). In other words, you need a "Basic" and "Advanced" versions of the game. Basic needs few moving parts (not just parts stuck in one mode, but less over system clutter) to teach the basics, while Advanced should have lots of options and settings that the DM/players can use at his choice. But like basic and advanced, you shouldn't expect you can drop a B/X fighter (d8 HD and all) into your AD&D game and run as is and expect to fill the role of an AD&D fighter with weapon specialization and exceptional strength. Which all leads us back to complexity between classes. Assuming we're not going to build two versions of D&DN and that "easy mode" classes can't fill the role of their complex brethren, we need to look at how can a new player get involved in the game. What classes are "easier" to play than others. Tradition dictates fighters are easiest to start with due to having few choices and high durability (thieves would be next difficult, but lack durability. Clerics are durable, but have more choices, wizards are squishy and complex). And thus, it was a step-up system of game mastery that meant newer players avoided casters in lieu of martial PCs at first until the ropes were learned. There are ways to fix this, but it requires either removing choices from the complex characters (limiting spells, for example) or increasing choices in simple characters (such as adding maneuvers, feats, or such to fighters). Which brings us back to a "easy" and "hard" game again. Thus, one of three things will happen: D&DN will abandon "easy" mode altogether in order to fix perceived imbalance between classes; D&DN will attempt to make "easy mode" classes that can't compete against "hard mode" versions of themselves and thus force the player to graduate (quickly) to hard mode to be viable; or the game splits into two similar-yer-different games; one running all classes in easy mode and one running all classes in hard. (Basic vs. Advanced, Beginner Box vs. Core Rules, etc). There is no other way to fix the linear fighters vs. quadratic wizards issue (other than ignore it, as D&D did up to 3.5).The question for D&D Next will be which wins out: a light game that eschews perfect balance or a complex game that is balanced but hard to learn. It started out simple, but its quickly becoming the latter.</blockquote>

Verification